Bonilla et al v. Bonilla

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Case No.: 13-00951 CW (PR) Plaintiffs, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 v. FLOY E. DAWSON, et al., Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Case No.: 13-00952 CW (PR) Plaintiffs, v. 12 13 14 KATHLEEN BONILLA, Defendant. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR) v. 17 FRANCIE KOEHLER, et al., 18 Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, 19 20 Plaintiffs, 21 Case No.: 13-00954 CW (PR) v. 22 23 PACIFIC GROWERS, et al., Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Case No.: 13-00955 CW (PR) 24 Plaintiffs, 25 26 v. PACIFIC GROWERS, 27 28 Defendant. ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS 1 Plaintiff Steven Bonilla is a state prisoner proceeding pro 2 se who seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these 3 five civil actions. 4 Tropical Wholesale Nursery, a company of which he alleges he is 5 the president and owner. 6 various individuals and entities who he maintains are “in default 7 of an opportunity to respond” to a “commercial affidavit” he sent 8 them demanding the payment of debt owed to the company. 9 to Plaintiff, Defendants’ activities are also related to his He brings these actions on behalf of Sunstate In these actions, he attempts to sue According United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 criminal conviction. 11 these same individuals and entities in federal court on numerous 12 occasions. 13 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 Plaintiff previously has attempted to sue This Court has dismissed all of those actions for On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Plaintiff that, in 15 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to 16 proceed IFP in any civil action he files in this Court. 17 Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal 18 at 6:23-7:19. 19 Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he “is under imminent danger of 20 serious physical injury.” 21 language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that 22 “imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the 23 complaint. 24 Cir. 2007). 25 See In re The sole exception to this restriction is that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in 26 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 27 these complaints. 28 sentenced to death does not, at this time, satisfy the imminent Further, the fact that Plaintiff has been 2 1 danger requirement. 2 because this Court has entered a stay of execution in his pending 3 federal habeas corpus action. 4 CW (PR), Docket no. 3. 5 He is not in imminent danger of execution See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 Moreover, as the Court has explained to Plaintiff on numerous 6 occasions, to the extent the relief he seeks pertains to his 7 ongoing attempts to invalidate his conviction, such claims, if 8 raised, must be brought by appointed counsel in his pending 9 federal habeas corpus action. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s requests 11 to proceed IFP are DENIED and these actions are hereby DISMISSED. 12 13 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close the files. 14 The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in C 08-0471 CW. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 3/11/2013 ________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?